If you thought that growing awareness about climate change, coupled with years of austerity and recession, would mean that European drivers would be buying small fuel efficient cars, you would be wrong.

Although the pomp, swagger and pure unadulterated panache of Motor Shows do not totally reflect what your average consumer buys, they do give an indication of where the auto makers think the market is heading.

Most thinking women understand the machinations of the fashion industry. “This year XXXXX is IN! Ladies get on board now and update your wardrobe! You don’t want to be caught out in last years rags, NOW DO YOU? If you don’t update, this could seriously affect your mating potential!” Those who caught on long ago have large closets or hermetically sealed storage bags.

For all you Euro-suckers, build an extra garage and mothball that hatchback or puddle-jumper (that word has an etymology I only recently glommed,) because that un-sexy transport is going to be needed again, sooner rather than later.

This was at least somewhat predictable: it’s a way for people to deny their fears. “They’re selling big wasteful cars, so that must mean the climate disaster isn’t as bad as claimed. So to make it even less bad, I’ll buy one of these things”.

Instead of casting blame at Exxon or BP or the big car makers, you reserve your angst for Naomi Klein? It would not surprise me if a
right wing organization paid you to post such an opinion. After all, you appear learned about some statistics, but instead of aiming
at the causative agencies–including a media that uses seductive, if not hypnotic mesmerizing tools to market these ecologically criminal
vehicles–you aim at Naomi Klein.

This post, the 3rd one in which you take aim at Naomi Klein proves my contention.

In order to reach a lot of people when mass media is VERY costly, groups with significant agendas may indeed accept money from The Rockefellers or anyone else. It’s a quid pro quo and likely necessary adaptation to the culture of Dominant Capitalism. So while some might view this as a devil’s bargain, that doesn’t change the fact that in a corporately run society (media and all) such deals are often inevitable. The Rockefellers and Ford Foundation have an interest in green-washing their operations, and that may explain why they serve as funders. They are not the ONLY funders.

You are pushing the (formerly executed by Tom Carberry) argument that this funding therefore taints their mission.

You’re doing a simultaneous character HIT on both Naomi Klein and 350 org as if YOU are doing anywhere NEAR what they are seeking to do–in working against the most empowered (ENERGY) industries in the world–to get the Truth out on climate change.

As a matter of fact, it’s people like you working against those working for changes in ENERGY structures and established systems, who convince people that those working for change are tainted. Then, convinced there is no honest leadership nor path away from the grip of today’s dirty energy behemoths, you arguably WORK to sustain that same status quo that will lead to species’ demise, including our own.

With larger, heavier vehicles comes the environmental requirement for more fuel efficient engines. Right now these new SUVs could be powered by hybrid diesel engines, with the technology which is being utilized today. Such engines would potentially double the number of miles one can drive on a tank of fuel. If that isn’t happening, one should question why not? Would the lobbying power of the major oil companies have something to do with it?